Jump to content
tyler_09

Anyone Have Neg Stuff Against Animal Overpass?

Recommended Posts

I have a full case neg too, PM me if you want it

 

edit: it's actually for a critical version with tech thought and anthro advantages, so it might not be as useful

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: it's actually for a critical version with tech thought and anthro advantages, so it might not be as useful

how do you run this aff without these advantages... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have any more high school debates, so enjoy! 

 

The only way they can solve is if they remove roads- their internal link author

Noss 95 (Reed, Davis-Shine Professor of Conservation Biology at the University of Central Florida and a noted authority in conservation biology. “Climate change and conservation

Land conservation is even more essential and urgent in a time of rapidly changing climate†http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/climate-change) SI

In evaluating various mitigation options for road-wildlife problems, it must be remembered that each is a compromise, addresses only a subset of the multiple ecological impacts of roads, and is far less satisfactory than outright road closure and obliteration. The serious conservationist recognizes that mitigation options should be applied only to roads already constructed, and which will be difficult to close in the near future (i.e., major highways). In such cases, construction of viaducts over important wildlife movement corridors (as documented by roadkills) and other critical natural areas should be vigorously pursued. Amphibian tunnels and other smaller underpasses also should be constructed where needed. But the bottom line is that no new roads should be built, and most existing roads -- especially on public lands -- should be closed and obliterated. This is the preferred alternative! A priority system for determining which roads should be closed first is necessary to guide conservation actions toward the most deserving targets. The Grizzly Bear Compendium (Lefranc et. al. 1987, pp. 145-46) specifies which kinds of roads should be closed on public lands to protect grizzlies: Access roads should be closed after harvesting and re-stocking, temporary roads and landings should be obliterated, collector roads and loop roads should be closed in most instances, local roads should be closed within one season after use, and seismic trails and roads should be closed after operations have ceased. Bear biologist Chuck Jonkel has long recommended an aggressive road closure program on public lands. Public education on the rationale for closures, and strong law enforcement, must accompany road closure programs if they are to be effective. The Grizzly Bear Compendium recommends that road use restrictions, such as seasonal closures of roads in areas used only seasonally by bears, be placed on roads that cannot be permanently closed. In a series of publications, I have recommended that large core areas of public lands be managed as roadless "wilderness recovery areas" (a concept attributable to Dave Foreman). Buffer zones surrounding these core areas would have limited access for recreation and other "multiple-use" activities consistent with preservation of the core preserves. Buffer zones also would insulate the core areas from the intensive uses of the humanized landscape. These large preserve complexes would be connected by broad corridors of natural habitat to form a regional network. As Keith Hammer has documented, however, road closures that appear on paper may not function as such on the ground. Keith found that 38% of the putative road closures on the Flathead National Forest in Montana would not bar passenger vehicles. The road miles behind the ineffective barriers represented 44% of the roads reported by the Forest Service as being closed to all motorized vehicles year-round. Gates, earthen berms, and other structures are not usually effective in restricting road use. This is especially true in more open-structured habitats, such as longleaf pine and ponderosa pine forests, where motorists can easily drive around barriers. It may be that the only effective road closures are those where the road is "ripped" and revegetated. The Forest Service and other public agencies will claim that road closures, revegetation, and other restorative measures are too expensive to be implemented on a broad scale. But much of the approximately $400 million of taxpayers' money squandered annually by the Forest Service on below-cost timber sales goes to road-building. Road maintenance is also expensive. Virtually all of this money could be channeled into road closures and associated habitat restoration. This work would be labor-intensive, and providing income to the many laid off loggers, timber sale planners, and road engineers -- for noble jobs, rather than jobs of destruction! Likewise, the huge budgets of federal, state, and county highway departments could be directed to road closures and revegetation, as well as viaducts and underpasses to minimize roadkill on roads kept open. We cannot expect our public agencies to shift to a more enlightened roads policy without a fight. A lot of people make a lot of money designing and building roads, and exploiting the resources to which roads lead. Nor can we expect the slothful, ignorant populace to give up what they see as the benefits of roads (fast transportation, easy access to recreational areas, scenery without a sweat, etc.) for the sake of bears and toads. Education of the public, the politicians, and our fellow environmentalists about the multiple and far-reaching impacts of roads is critical. As Aldo Leopold noted, "recreational development is a job not of building roads into lovely country, but of building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind." The greatest near-term need is direct action in defense of existing roadless areas, and to close roads where they are causing the most problems for native biodiversity

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean as a K aff it's pretty good/above average. I think only one person suggested it was stupid. For a topical anthro aff, it's not bad at all. I think as a policy aff with like only a bunch of bio-d impacts it could be dumb but effective if ran correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean as a K aff it's pretty good/above average. I think only one person suggested it was stupid. For a topical anthro aff, it's not bad at all. I think as a policy aff with like only a bunch of bio-d impacts it could be dumb but effective if ran correctly.

what have you done.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what have you done.......

.... you do know that the term came before the username, right?

It's not like if everybody started talking about impact turns, they'd be talking about impacturn.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you run this aff without these advantages... 

I actually don't think Heidegger and anthro jive super well, but that's just me. I've seen it run with bioD/collisions I don't even know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually animal overpasses was a fun aff to read, and no you don't need the anthro advantages.  (although we did read them in the 2AC)  The version of the aff I ran was wildlife corridors.  Basically the advantage was BioD, with the uniqueness predicated off of the fact that species permeability is low, and land is fragmented.  Also warming, regardless of the ability to be solved, means that the need to migrate is increased.  Thus retroactively restore wildlife corridors/crossings.  (we wanted a second advantage, and because we were passing a specific bill, (parts of HR 5101 with some amendments if anyone cares), we also added fish ladders to have a natives style advantage.  The key reason to run it as policy aff, is because the target to hit is so small, and you can always read anthro in the 2AC.  As to beating it oncase, the card above won't be bad, as well as the obvious BioD stuff.  As to an anthro version/advantage, just answer it like an anthro K on the impact and the solvency level.  Most of the cards are really fun to read, but aren't as good as they could be.  And of course offcase, although someone suggested cap, and I would like to say good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger is commonly criticized as being anthropometric. There's a lot of good evidence on this, especially from the current college topic. I think if you run like soft anthro (excluding the suffering of animals bad) then it's ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, we essentially did the same thing as backcountryguy. warming/biod are like the political manifestations of anthro- which I believe is an excellent way to sell K affs to traditional judges.

 

so has anyone else incorporated Heidegger into this aff? any advice would be appreciated, especially anything beyond sticking a tech shell into the 1AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...